Ukpabia Ozor
Ways of Knowing Sec 27
Jeremy Bell
5/5/2014
The Moral of the Will
“All rational knowledge is either material, and concerned with some object or formal and concerned only with the form of understanding and of reason themselves and with the Universal rules of thought in general without regard to differences of its objects” (Kant 1)
Philosophy is divided into three fields: logic, physics, and ethics. Logic is the study of pure thought, independent of any outside interference. Physics is the study of how things happen in the world of material objects. Ethics is the study of how things should happen in the world of human morals. The quote above is basically saying that Philosophy may also be divided on the basis of whether it is “pure” or “empirical.” Pure philosophy only deals with a priori concepts; concepts that occur to us independent of any experience or perception. In comparison empirical philosophy deals with the objects we experience in the world around us. Logic is pure philosophy that simply uses the process of thought. In light of that, Metaphysics is philosophy as it applies to our efforts to understand the world in short it is simply another way of understanding the word. Physics and ethics have both empirical and metaphysical branches.
“A good will is good not because of what it affects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing, in a sense, it is good in itself” (Kant 7)
The one thing in the world that is unambiguously good is good will. Good is good. Even when character qualities like intelligence and courage or qualities like wealth, status, good health can be corrupted and used for either good or bad, a good will is intrinsically good, ...
... middle of paper ...
...me from God or through divine intervention. Rather, they are based on reasons that make sense to all rational people. Over time like all great philosophers, Kant's arguments have slowly been critiqued as time changed but his work provoked a wide range of responses, both good and bad. No matter what we think of Kant and his views, it is impossible to ignore his impact on modern day philosophy. Two hundred years after his death, and I’m still writing about him.
Citations Page
Kant, Immanuel, and James W. Ellington. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals ; with On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Third ed. : , . Print.
Preface
I was unable to truly write well on the meaning of Kant. I read through a lot of his work but was unable to truly understand his ideas. I understood the concepts but not the complete meaning.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
Bailey, T. (2010). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the Groundwork. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 18(4), 635-662. doi:10.1080/09608788.2010.502349 Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9f0eb1ba-edf5-4b35-a15a-37588479a493%40sessionmgr112&vid=10&hid=115
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kempsmith. New York: The Humanities P, 1950.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Nothing in the world – indeed even beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be called good with qualification except good will (Kant 61).
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Immanuel Kant’s work on Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals explores the understanding of morels, and the process of which these morals are developed through philosophy. He also disentangled the usefulness and foundation of the instituted of religion.
“[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.”
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
Finally, Kant saw the world as he wanted to see it, not the reality of it. In reality human beings are social animals that can be deceived, and can become irrational, this distinction is what makes us human, and it is that which makes us make mistakes. Kant states good arguments in his essay however his belief that people are enslaved and shackled by the “guardians” when he writes “shackles of a permanent immaturity” (Kant, 1) is sometimes absurd when the same guardians are the people that encourage our minds of thinking.
Kantianism, which is derived from the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, states that the only thing that is truly good is a good will. A good will is one that acts because of its duty. Kantians asks two main questions. The first question is, “What is unconditionally good?”. When answering this question, Kantians weed out all other possible answers. In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states that, “Understanding, wit, judgment1 and the like, whatever such talents of mind' may be called, or courage, resolution, and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, I but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose distinctive constitution" is therefore called character, is not good (Kant, p 7).” For example, power is not unconditionally good because you can abuse it. Also, money cannot be unconditionally good because you can buy bad things with it. Happiness is not unconditionally good because bad things can make you happy. The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good ...
‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198. 2) Kant, Immanuel. ‘Morality and Rationality’ in [MPS] 410-429. 3) Rachel, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.